Senate Committee reviews concerns over Oregon stadium funding proposal

The Oregon Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue convened on March 24, 2025, to discuss significant financial implications surrounding a proposed funding bill for a new Major League Baseball (MLB) stadium. The meeting highlighted concerns over the potential economic impact and the necessity for thorough examination before any decisions are made.

Key discussions centered on the proposal being the largest request for state funds directed at a single private business in Oregon's history. Critics emphasized the need for careful scrutiny, arguing that the projected revenue streams from the stadium may not materialize as expected. They pointed out that while proponents claim the funding is "found money," the reality is that without a stadium, there would be no team, and thus no revenue generated from ticket sales or concessions.

Concerns were raised about the financial structure of the proposal, which could potentially double the initial $800 million cost when financing costs are included. Testimonies indicated that the optimistic revenue growth assumptions made by proponents do not align with historical data, which shows a much lower annual increase in player salaries. This discrepancy raises questions about the sustainability of the projected income.

Additionally, the bill's implications for local services were discussed. Critics noted that the funding model would divert property taxes and eliminate income tax revenue for public services, which could strain local budgets. The lack of a sales tax in Oregon further complicates the financial landscape, as it limits alternative revenue sources for funding essential services like police and fire departments.

Marsha Kelly from the Oregon Women's Rights Coalition urged the committee to reconsider the involvement of state funds in professional sports, citing historical economic studies that have consistently shown unfavorable outcomes for taxpayer investment in such ventures. She referenced examples from other cities, including Tampa Bay, where public financing for stadiums has not yielded the expected economic benefits.

The committee was urged to extend the hearing to allow more opponents to voice their concerns, emphasizing the importance of public input in decisions that could significantly impact state finances and local communities. The meeting concluded with a call for a more cautious approach to the proposal, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in the use of public funds.